Reflection of Modern Games

Technology and Gaming
#1

The tl;dr summary is at the bottom, but I suggest reading the actual events instead.

It all started last weekend when my father called me about something interesting he was given on a job (he moves furniture and drives a truck). He was given an original Atari 2600 with a bunch of controllers and games, with a Nintendo 64 with much of the same. He said that I should come over and get it because he knows I’m into that sorta stuff. So Anyways, I drove up to his house yesterday to take a look at what he got…

When I arrived, I took a seat and talked with my father for a while – eventually we got to the Atari. When he brought me to it, all of the wires and devices were cramped in a single cardboard box about as big as filing cabinet, which probably means it hadn’t been touched in a while. So I dissected the box of all it’s components and went to my dad’s basement to grab an old CRT television that could handle the old hardware correctly. When I finally got color and everything else working, my dad started playing Kaboom; one of my dad’s old favorites. Being born in the late 80s, I didn’t really get too much time on the Atari before focusing on Sega and Nintendo, so some of the titles I recognized first hand, but the rest I had just seen or heard of through AVGN or basic internet surfing. Anyways, when my dad was done with his nostalgic play-through of his favorite classics, he popped in a game called Combat, which he told me all Ataris came with back when they were being sold. I had never heard of the game, or at least couldn’t recall it.

So he popped it in and there we were controlling two separate, colored tanks on opposite ends of the screen. The rules were simple - utilize cover and shoot each other. But regardless of the simple concept, me and my dad found each other going at this game for about 25 minutes. After that time had passed, I rose up and said something like, “…well, that’s enough of this game. I forgot how simple games were back then…” But then my dad laughed and told me to keep my pants on as he stood up and started fiddling with some lever on the Atari.

As he did this, the the map started changing with every button press; the obstacles would change, the colors, the bullets bounced off walls now, and there was even an airplane version where you got to fire your rockets and then guide them into the other player (apparently called Heat-seeker or something). When my dad started running me through the rotations of different game modes, my dad and I ended up being there on that single game for about 3 1/2 [/SIZE]hours. We were laughing hysterically the whole time as he kicked my ass at these old games. We then went on to play other games - we played Frogger, Pacman, Warlord (or something), centipede, space invaders, etc.

After a long day of fun on the system, I said goodnight to my dad and went home, letting him hold on to the system for another couple of weeks in the hopes that he would get some joy out of it. On the drive home, all I was thinking about was how badly I ate my words and ended up playing those simple games for so long. Then I started thinking, how come no games are as innovative as the Atari games these days? Essentially, most games in the past 15 years have either been a third person shooter, over-the-shoulder shooter, FPS, or RTS – or a variation of one of the 4.

I suddenly felt so sick of the four mundane game styles that I had been fed for the last 15 years that I started going out of my way to look into older games – and I’m a classic gamer, so I had to go back to my PS1 and Sega emulators. Eventually, it made sense why game publishers like PopCap made so much money off simple little games; it doesn’t take amazing graphics or a compelling story to make a game good – it just takes pure fun.

What do you guys think? Do you think games these days tend to focus more on story, graphics, and money than on fun and relaxed competition? And if you have an opinion, which do you prefer?

TL;DR: Time on the Atari made me realize that simple games can actually be more fun than complicated graphics and story. Do you think that game publishers should take a step back and think about the fun-factor more?

#2

You say that most games in the last 15 years were tps, fps, or rts. What do you consider combat? Or any of the other games? Top down shooter/other type of game? What would be the point of making one of those games now if you can actually be a character? You could probably program one of those games yourself in a few hours and make it as personal as you want. What you’re talking about are the simple games that are released for iOS and Android and XBLA, which while nice and all, games have evolved past.

Simple games have their place but I for one do not want the gaming world to become saturated by simplistic throwaway games.

#3

That’s not what I meant, entirely. I feel as though games have left some ingredients in the past - ingredients like fun. While a lot of games these days are fun, I was literally on the edge of my seat with this Combat game I was playing. My point wasn’t to say that simplicity is the way to go, but that it doesn’t take amazing quality to make a game fun.

P.S. Going to edit my questions at the end to fit that description because reading it now, I can see where you got that idea.

#4

Which is what iOS, Android, and XBLA games do. As well as most indie games. I don’t see what your complaint is. There are plenty of games that deliver what you’re asking for, I just feel they have no reason to be released as full games on the consoles we have now.

#5

Once more, you’re reading into it too literally. Jesus Christ, I wasn’t complaining about anything - it was an anecdote. I was searching for fun, not new game mechanics, or mechanics that were inspired by fun. I changed my initial question, check again.

Or are you suggesting that fun is exclusive to simple games and don’t have a place on official platforms?

Moreover I do apologize if my message was unclear at first, but it should make sense now.

#6

I have fun with games that are coming out now. Your question makes no sense to me.

[/i]In the first sentence you still are implying that games that are simple are more fun than games that have complicated graphics and story as if the two (three?) exclude each other. And in the actual question you imply that games coming out now are not fun because the developers focus more on graphics and story.

#7

I said they can be more fun, as a testament to how far just a little fun can go.

I know! Reading is hard. And don’t even try to say there is an implication there, because there isn’t.

#8

Whatever you say chap.

#9

Derp

#10

It’s Reese’s for breakfast!

#11

Reese’s Puff Cerial!

#12

I, too, enjoy playing my 22 year old Genesis console once in a while.

There’s some great games for it, too. Rocket Knight Adventures, Shinobi III, Sonic 2, Urban Strike. I agree in principle that graphics have become far too emphasized over quality gameplay. But there are well designed and fun games on just about any console worth mentioning. Phantasy Star II was a landmark RPG, but it plays like ass because it’s incredibly difficult to such a degree that a strategy guide had to be included with the game.

Basically what people would probably infer about your story would be that you’re looking down on current gen games because they don’t have enough of a gameplay focus. Whether or not that was what you meant is more or less irrelevant. Combat sounds like a really cool game though, because it sounds like it’s got a lot of customization for how the game behaves.

The real problem with modern games is that sometimes there’s a “wrong way” to play a game. I go into Fire Emblem and I get my ass kicked by the RNG because I didn’t use the “right” units in earlier chapters. I’ll get stomped in Painkiller by the first major boss because I’m not using the “right” strategy.

There should not be a “wrong way” to play a game. Game design is based on the central conceit that the player is progressing through the game utilizing the interface according to their own choices. If there’s only one way to go through a level, or one strategy to use against a tough opponent, that negates the entire core function of the gameplay experience- interactivity.

We, as players, expect our inputs to mean something. We expect to be able to play a game, not press buttons and watch canned animations of a fight in a quick time sequence. We expect legitimate challenge out of our shooters, not endlessly dying over and over on “Whiskey Hotel” because we’re not following the specific path the game wants us to go.

I’m not saying linear games aren’t fun. There’s plenty of linear games that are lots of fun. Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time is highly linear, but it presents a well told story with relatable characters, has forgiving but brain-teasing movement puzzles, and speedy, intense combat sequences. Final Fantasy XIII has a combat system that can literally be boiled down to a button press to auto-combat, but it still requires strategy and the Paradigm Shift system allows the player to create a flexible battle strategy tailored to their characters’ strengths (that is, when the game takes off the training wheels about thirty hours in). Splinter Cell Chaos Theory has an excellent mix of linear and non-linear in the Bank level, where the player can spend as long as they like exploring a two story bank complex with attached gardens accomplishing objectives and avoiding guards with whatever methods they choose.

Games can be designed right and they can be designed wrong. Regardless of narrative, regardless of overall gameplay flow, from minute to minute; if the game is of a high quality, the player is going to be having fun. This applies to anything, from the Atari 2600 to the most advanced, Orphan heart powered multicore computers of the future.

#13

Oh look a human!

I come in peace.

#14

A pretentious one that’s played too many video games over the years but yes. Human.

makes Vulcan sign

#15

:slight_smile:

#16

This thread.

#17

You discovered that old games are fun. Congratulations. Welcome to what most people have know for 40 years. They were games and still are, something doesn’t get labeled game and be successful without being entertaining. Pokers like a century or two old and people still play that shit.

I think your statement about games being complicated / simple is more of personal one than an industry one.

Your choice between simple and complex games is dumb. You don’t have to choose. When I want a fun 4 player co-op game for the couch I can find one. And when I want a deep story driven game I can find one. Its a big industry and a lot is made in it.

Also the idea that games in the last 15 years haven’t been innovative is silly. Games have been innovating massively. There’s constantly game play mechanics and ideas breaking out that no one has seen before. Thing is its becoming specialized so its less noticeable at a glance. Which is more apparent. The game that invents the tank game genre or the one that makes massive strides and improvements upon it.

#18

“Fun” is a subjective term and some people would not find the older games (such as Atari or original Nintendo, ColecoVision, etc) as fun as newer more modern games (CoD, Half Life 2, Diablo 3, etc). And vice versa. And some people find some older games as fun as newer games.

#19

I CANT QUIT YOU DRAGON :’(

#20

lol

Founded in 2004, Leakfree.org became one of the first online communities dedicated to Valve’s Source engine development. It is more famously known for the formation of Black Mesa: Source under the 'Leakfree Modification Team' handle in September 2004.